This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+ at andrew dot cmu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:16:12 -0400
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010718110700.A1064@nevyn.them.org>
> I've also got a few small cleanups that can go in after the code moves (I
> want to keep them separate for revision history purposes).
Very wise move.
> 2001-07-18 Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
>
> * signals.c: New file.
> * target.c (struct signals): Move to signals.c.
> * target.c (target_signal_to_name): Likewise.
> * target.c (target_signal_from_name): Likewise.
> * target.c (target_signal_from_host): Likewise.
> * target.c (do_target_signal_to_host): Likewise.
> * target.c (target_signal_to_host_p): Likewise.
> * target.c (target_signal_to_host): Likewise.
> * target.c (target_signal_from_command): Likewise.
> * target.c (initialize_targets): Move check of
> struct signals to...
> * signals.c (_initialize_signals): Here. New function.
No problems with the theory. I just wonder about the file name.
A logical follow-on is to create ``signals.h'' (and put ``enum
target_signal'' there). Anyone know of a potential conflict?
If, in a later change there is going to be a
s/target_signal/<something-sensible>/ should the file name reflect that
intent.
enjoy,
Andrew